I'm pretty sure today I'll make that batch of chili I mentioned the other day. I was talking with MrsBlue about possibly adding in the chili peppers gradually to have the heat level be a little less random when we recognized that we both sort of like to be surprised in this regard. Let's call it chili roulette.

The US military would probably send those 100 billion somewhere where no public control exists to do the same thing Nasa does.. except 10 times as expensive. Like the military industrial complex. Nasa is about unarmed space vessels. But practically you gonna need at the very least point defense weapons in space, simply to have a defense against asteroids and smaller objects that are on a collision course. And you know what the current defense against random impact situations is? Hoping it doesn't hit you and when it does, hoping it doesn't hit anything important that's not there 3 times over. That nobody puts any serious money in space vehicles should be apparent there. You could spend 30b on a mars colony and have it fail because a dense rock the size of a fly hit it somewhere vital, like it's power gen or fuel tank. So yeah, no wonder nobody bothers to do anything yet. We need a space shipyard and a easier cheaper way to get 100t+ loads into space. Then you could start building real space-ships, and not fragile slingshot containers with engines taped on.

It's also why the ISS is in a retarded orbit that it can't hold without constant correction, there is currently no way to bring heavy armor up even the most modern composite armor is HEAVY. That, and the radioactive shielding issue. ^^

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 11:17:It sounds like the "120Hz makes everything look like a soap opera" argument.

The fact is we are so adapted to the current standard that of course anything new is going to "look weird." Peter Jackson was right when he said people should "deal with it." If sets look like shit then that's a problem for filmmakers, not viewers.

This. If the standard FPS for movies was 48 instead of 24 and The Hobbit went with 24, people would be complaining because it looked too choppy and unrealistic. As with all things, people will eventually get used to 48 FPS if it becomes standard.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 16:59:Space exploration is not dead. We are moving into a drone phase, b/c we now have robots that can do what we needed men to do before. Just like the military, it's cheaper by 10 fold to send a drone to perform the tasks for us and send us the data back. And no loss of life for failure. We've learned so much more about Mars, the solar system, and the universe using drones than we ever could have using manned missions. Without drones we would have no shots of the Mars horizon or soil samples (or Titan or Venus). Would having a person in space looking through the Hubble telescope make the images any better?

Space exploration has had wide effects in science as a whole. Understanding the broader universe has lead to new avenues of science on Earth benefiting all mankind. It's a worthwhile endeavor that also has return on investment.

As for cost, the US spent 5% of GDP on the space race in the 60s, a massive amount. We spend a tiny fraction of that today, and should probably be spending a bit more. In terms of knowledge the next steps seem pretty clear: get the Webb telescope in orbit ASAP, and design and build a much larger replacement for Hubble. Send robust drones to study Neptune and Uranus, and more to Venus as well. Any mining that will take place will happen on the moon, being so close. We might see that in our lifetime, although the logistics are mind boggling.

As for men to Mars, we simply don't have the technology at this point to do it feasibly. The chance of total failure is very high using current chemical based rockets, since the trip would be so long. Other propulsion systems are either too slow or experimental. And we don't have adequate shielding to protect the astronauts from solar radiation.

And it's estimated to send men to Mars would cost $100b US, an astronomical amount. Curiosity only cost $2.5b US. You can see the attraction to sending robots right there.

Im sorry jdreyer but this is just wrong. Please google Project Orion (there is a really good article on wikipedia) and I mean the project Orion from the 60s not this new rocket.

We have the technology to send a spaceship to Mars and back in a few months using technology that was developed in the 50s.

The only reason we are not utilising our entire solar system right now is because of POLITICAL reasons.

My point: NASA (and other basic science research, for that matter, for similar reasons) is important, that it is underfunded relative to other expenditures, GDP, and the total budget, and that you would likely get a better return on investment by spending another $17B on it (doubling its budget) than by putting the same amount of money into the issues people usually cite as reasons we shouldn't be bothering with space.

Excellent point. Well said!

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 15:22:And dumping money into NASA isn't going to magically solve all our problems, either. What's your point? NASA should be funded, sure. Within reason. And stuff like education, healthcare and alternative energy are a hell of a lot more immediate and necessary than a mission to Mars. Without something besides fossil fuels, we aren't doing shit in space. Without education, nobody is going to have any idea what to do in space. Without healthcare, some kid is going to die of cancer instead of going to work at NASA.

You seem to forget NASA depends on people. That's its resource. When you get a generation of well-educated, healthy individuals who don't spend half their lives wondering how they'll ever pay off their student loans, maybe then more people will show more support for space exploration. Or maybe we can pass the buck to one of the dozens of countries ahead of us in math and science education.

My point: NASA (and other basic science research, for that matter, for similar reasons) is important, that it is underfunded relative to other expenditures, GDP, and the total budget, and that you would likely get a better return on investment by spending another $17B on it (doubling its budget) than by putting the same amount of money into the issues people usually cite as reasons we shouldn't be bothering with space.

Healthcare, education, and alternative energy are all important, and we're throwing huge amounts of money at the first two. The latter's probably underfunded, but it's not for lack of money--it's political.

You could shave 5% of the defense budget and double NASA's budget, and throw an equivalent amount of money at two of those other problems. But that amount of money won't make a difference to health care or education.

And we already spend more money per student for education and more money per citizen for health care, than any other country.

Edit: Actually, you could throw $17B specifically at higher education and, I dunno, let 10% of college students go to school for free if you assume average yearly tuition's around $10k. That might have an effect.

wow, a balanced, whole picture perspective. never thought i'd see that on the internet. but well said, sir. NASA'S budget is so tiny compared to other US expenditures that even zeroing it and putting it elsewhere would be a mere drop in a swimming pool. not that it matters but personally i think they've more than paid for themselves with their tremendous accomplishments and public technological advances. if i were president personally i'd dramatically increase their budget and slash defense by probably a quarter.

re: HFR, i like the 120hz tvs. to me it's like looking out a window. i keep instinctively moving my head left and right to try to get a better angle on some object. i haven't seen it yet, but i bet the problem with 48fps/HD is that props don't have the detail of real life objects and now it's becoming apparent with this super high fidelity video. i bet that's why it looks like a stage play. with human skin as resolution goes up there's always more detail, but with props, eventually you hit a limit where it's just undetailed color. i think we're hitting that limit, and future props need to be weathered in much more detail.

Space exploration is not dead. We are moving into a drone phase, b/c we now have robots that can do what we needed men to do before. Just like the military, it's cheaper by 10 fold to send a drone to perform the tasks for us and send us the data back. And no loss of life for failure. We've learned so much more about Mars, the solar system, and the universe using drones than we ever could have using manned missions. Without drones we would have no shots of the Mars horizon or soil samples (or Titan or Venus). Would having a person in space looking through the Hubble telescope make the images any better?

Space exploration has had wide effects in science as a whole. Understanding the broader universe has lead to new avenues of science on Earth benefiting all mankind. It's a worthwhile endeavor that also has return on investment.

As for cost, the US spent 5% of GDP on the space race in the 60s, a massive amount. We spend a tiny fraction of that today, and should probably be spending a bit more. In terms of knowledge the next steps seem pretty clear: get the Webb telescope in orbit ASAP, and design and build a much larger replacement for Hubble. Send robust drones to study Neptune and Uranus, and more to Venus as well. Any mining that will take place will happen on the moon, being so close. We might see that in our lifetime, although the logistics are mind boggling.

As for men to Mars, we simply don't have the technology at this point to do it feasibly. The chance of total failure is very high using current chemical based rockets, since the trip would be so long. Other propulsion systems are either too slow or experimental. And we don't have adequate shielding to protect the astronauts from solar radiation.

And it's estimated to send men to Mars would cost $100b US, an astronomical amount. Curiosity only cost $2.5b US. You can see the attraction to sending robots right there.

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 15:22:And dumping money into NASA isn't going to magically solve all our problems, either. What's your point? NASA should be funded, sure. Within reason. And stuff like education, healthcare and alternative energy are a hell of a lot more immediate and necessary than a mission to Mars. Without something besides fossil fuels, we aren't doing shit in space. Without education, nobody is going to have any idea what to do in space. Without healthcare, some kid is going to die of cancer instead of going to work at NASA.

You seem to forget NASA depends on people. That's its resource. When you get a generation of well-educated, healthy individuals who don't spend half their lives wondering how they'll ever pay off their student loans, maybe then more people will show more support for space exploration. Or maybe we can pass the buck to one of the dozens of countries ahead of us in math and science education.

Precisely. What the US needs to do is drastically slash its military budget. The MIIC has been looting the country for far too long. Factoring everything - troops and bases around the globe, Homeland Security, you're looking at close to a trillion a year. That's insane. The rest of the world combined doesn't spend even 200 billion. Imagine what you could do for a works program to rebuild America's infrastructure - which desperately needs it, education, healthcare, social services, etc. with even 1/2 of that, hell, even 1/4 of it! I think space is important too, but not nearly as close as trying to get the basics right here and now.

“That's it. You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!”

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 15:22:And dumping money into NASA isn't going to magically solve all our problems, either. What's your point? NASA should be funded, sure. Within reason. And stuff like education, healthcare and alternative energy are a hell of a lot more immediate and necessary than a mission to Mars. Without something besides fossil fuels, we aren't doing shit in space. Without education, nobody is going to have any idea what to do in space. Without healthcare, some kid is going to die of cancer instead of going to work at NASA.

You seem to forget NASA depends on people. That's its resource. When you get a generation of well-educated, healthy individuals who don't spend half their lives wondering how they'll ever pay off their student loans, maybe then more people will show more support for space exploration. Or maybe we can pass the buck to one of the dozens of countries ahead of us in math and science education.

My point: NASA (and other basic science research, for that matter, for similar reasons) is important, that it is underfunded relative to other expenditures, GDP, and the total budget, and that you would likely get a better return on investment by spending another $17B on it (doubling its budget) than by putting the same amount of money into the issues people usually cite as reasons we shouldn't be bothering with space.

Healthcare, education, and alternative energy are all important, and we're throwing huge amounts of money at the first two. The latter's probably underfunded, but it's not for lack of money--it's political.

You could shave 5% of the defense budget and double NASA's budget, and throw an equivalent amount of money at two of those other problems. But that amount of money won't make a difference to health care or education.

And we already spend more money per student for education and more money per citizen for health care, than any other country.

Edit: Actually, you could throw $17B specifically at higher education and, I dunno, let 10% of college students go to school for free if you assume average yearly tuition's around $10k. That might have an effect.

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 11:17:It sounds like the "120Hz makes everything look like a soap opera" argument.

The various names and incarnations boil down to processing and frame interpolation, it can differ a lot between sets too but almost always looks unnatural as a result. Some people just like the effect more than others, in my anecdotal experience people seem to largely dislike it. 120hz for 3D is obviously a different story.

And dumping money into NASA isn't going to magically solve all our problems, either. What's your point? NASA should be funded, sure. Within reason. And stuff like education, healthcare and alternative energy are a hell of a lot more immediate and necessary than a mission to Mars. Without something besides fossil fuels, we aren't doing shit in space. Without education, nobody is going to have any idea what to do in space. Without healthcare, some kid is going to die of cancer instead of going to work at NASA.

You seem to forget NASA depends on people. That's its resource. When you get a generation of well-educated, healthy individuals who don't spend half their lives wondering how they'll ever pay off their student loans, maybe then more people will show more support for space exploration. Or maybe we can pass the buck to one of the dozens of countries ahead of us in math and science education.

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 11:17:It sounds like the "120Hz makes everything look like a soap opera" argument.

The fact is we are so adapted to the current standard that of course anything new is going to "look weird." Peter Jackson was right when he said people should "deal with it." If sets look like shit then that's a problem for filmmakers, not viewers.

When I went back to visit my parents, my dad had the HD (blu ray) version of the Lord of the Rings movies (I only have the DVD versions), which I watched. And everything just looked... off, for some reason. When they stood in the Hall of Theoden in Rohan, instead of genuinely feeling like they stood in this massive throne room, I felt like they were standing on a set with some props. I think it was just to sharp and too detailed for me to any longer accept the illusion.

It's hard to explain, but I just like watching the movies in SD better than I do in HD.

To be fair, I have no idea whether 48fps would make a difference over 24fps. Would most cinemas even be able to play at 48fps?

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 10:34:You know, it is possible to see both sides of the issue. Obviously mankind's future will eventually be among the stars, but there are very real domestic issues which need dealing with. And they won't wait. If Neil deGrasse and Sagan can accept this, so should you.

There's just such a long list of 'real domestic issues' that nasa has helped/solved, here's some: [url=]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies[/url]

If NASA holds all those patents should they be able to fund them self? And that's no argument that private enterprise wouldn't come up with those things regardless. Space should be handled privately with government oversight. Otherwise it'll just be the masses paying for what the privileged enjoy as per usual. When most people are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves you have to prioritize - and space ain't a priority.

Besides Vger will return in a few centuries to wipe out the carbon unit infestation anyway.

Domestic issues will wait, and they will remain. You can't solve them with NASA's budget. You can't solve them with money. People aren't poor because the US spends money on space. People aren't hungry because the US spends money on space. People don't kill one another because the US spends money on space. People don't lack health care because the US spends money on space.

Cultural issues lie at the heart of all of those--you can't fix them by dumping a few billion dollars into them, or they'd be long-solved. It's culture and philosophy

PHJF wants to say Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks we should solve Earth-problems first, but maybe he should read this.

You write that space exploration is a "necessity." Why do you think others don't agree?

NdGT: I don't think they've thought it through. Most people who don't agree say, "We have problems here on Earth. Let's focus on them." Well, we are focusing on them. The budget of social programs in the federal tax base is 50 times greater for social programs than it is for NASA. We're already focused in ways that many people who are NASA naysayers would rather it become. NASA is getting half a penny on a dollar -- I'm saying let's double it. A penny on a dollar would be enough to have a real Mars mission in the near future.

I'll confess that it's hard to make the case for manned space in a sense of guaranteed returns--that's why it's government research and not corporations. The work done for the last fifty years is what is now letting private enterprises get into the game, though. It's that kind of research-for-its-own-sake that corporations won't/can't afford do anymore and that drives technological advances.

Basic science-wise: You can do things with manned missions that you can't with unmanned missions. A couple of people on Mars could do in a day what'll take Curiosity ten years.

Spin-off technology: Necessity is the mother of invention. This is an unknown, but like any other never-attempted science mega-project manned exploration always requires refining tools and techniques, developing new technologies, etc, like linked above.

Resources: We're not yet where it would be cost-effective to mine asteroids, in that it's currently expensive to fetch them and stuff on Earth is cheap. Both of these will change. The latter will happen on its own, and the former is what continuing to explore will fix, as we figure out better ways to do it.

Inspiration: NASA was once and could be again the US's (and science's) halo car. NdGt likes to make this point. The Apollo program inspired a generation of engineers and scientists.

Survival: The lack of a space program will kill the species eventually, if nothing else gets their first. It could be tomorrow, or it could be in a million years, but it'll happen. I'd put money on an extinction-level asteroid impact happening faster than a solution to poverty and unhappiness. And it's not necessarily the all-the-eggs-in-one-basket argument. Detection/deflection/destruction/WHATEVER all depend on us being good at space shit.

Massive Chivalry patch today with some nice patch notes. Will give it a try in a bit as I was enjoying Warband last night.

I have a question about NASA and space exploration. Is there ANYTHING that could be achieved in the next 50 years in outer space that could benefit mankind within the next 100 years?Also what benefits were there from going to the moon, beyond a really good Bruce Willis movie?

This comment was edited on Dec 5, 2012, 13:20.

Using a steering wheel on a Burnout game is like using the Space Shuttle controls to fly a kite.

PHJF wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 10:34:You know, it is possible to see both sides of the issue. Obviously mankind's future will eventually be among the stars, but there are very real domestic issues which need dealing with. And they won't wait. If Neil deGrasse and Sagan can accept this, so should you.

If NASA holds all those patents should they be able to fund them self? And that's no argument that private enterprise wouldn't come up with those things regardless. Space should be handled privately with government oversight. Otherwise it'll just be the masses paying for what the privileged enjoy as per usual. When most people are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves you have to prioritize - and space ain't a priority.

Besides Vger will return in a few centuries to wipe out the carbon unit infestation anyway.

“That's it. You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!”

It sounds like the "120Hz makes everything look like a soap opera" argument.

The fact is we are so adapted to the current standard that of course anything new is going to "look weird." Peter Jackson was right when he said people should "deal with it." If sets look like shit then that's a problem for filmmakers, not viewers.

dj LiTh wrote on Dec 5, 2012, 10:39:Also interesting about the 48fps viewing of The Hobbit....i myself cant stand 120/240 'feature' that newer tv's have. Looks so fake and jittery, i had hopes that recording the source material in 48fps would alleviate this somewhat, but i guess not. Guess our eyeballs are 30fps and getting as close to that for cinema is where its intended.

No one can stand that 120/240 crap. It's artificial garbage used as selling points in artificial environments that only idiots keep turned on. True 24p support is much, much more important.

Our eyeballs aren't really 30fps, and there can be arguments that 48p can work quite well, but the truth is that so much is hidden in 24p. Reality can be suspended in ways that it can't be when its more clear. Specifically, a set that looks fantastic at 24p may look artificial at 48p, because it's showing more detail and more truth.